Same old same old. Typical strategy. Why not come up with a coherent argument about why we should seek to increase populations ie. what are the benefits but no, instead the usual them and us rhetoric and put downs.

What are the benefits of unfettered growth other than higher profits? Try to convince us that your approach is the right one? It usually works much better than misrepresenting the opposing view.

Why isnt it completely obvious that sooner or late, in a finite world, we human beings will have to limit our numbers.

Or as with all biological species, the planetary eco-system WILL do it for us.

The solution to the very real problem of over-population is cultural, and not technological.

Especially when at our current level of cultural development (or rather lack of it) we are little more than hairy primate manure-machines, and as such, essentially sub-human, and deeply, mortally afraid.

We are threatened is the primary communication of the "news".

Which is why we are driven by our fear-created-hormones to reproduce ourselves endlessly. This being especially the case with almost all cultural collectives or memes (large or small). All of which are struggling to either survive or to dominate other groups. And even to gain a position of world power--by replacing the current Western hegemony.

Such struggles for power and lebens-room is the ONLY game on the planet.

The entire human world is ruled by fear.

This letter was written in response to this, now dreadful, global situation.

http://www.dabase.org/openlett.ht

We still have some natural increase, but that is entirely due to momentum from past high fertility rates from the 1960s and earlier. Our fertility rate is still below replacement level and has been since 1976, although it has gone up somewhat recently, possibly in response to the baby bonus, but more likely because women have been getting the message that fertility declines with age and having their babies sooner.

Once the baby boomers start to die in significant numbers, the natural increase will stop and then go slightly negative. If we started zero net immigration tomorrow, we would almost certainly get (temporarily) less than a million extra people. Babies are not the problem, although many of us have doubts about the wisdom of bribing people to have them. I doubt if Malcolm King is so stupid that he is incapable of reading the ABS figures, so he knows that his rants about fascist control of reproduction are complete defamatory nonsense, at least so far as most of us are concerned. (You can always find a few lone nutters who will say anything you like.)

Cheryl,

You haven't shown that Michael is wrong. You have given some facts about food exports that are implicit in Michael's graphs and then asserted, without evidence, that we can support triple the population, presumably through long droughts as well.

The real problem for the SPA is that this guy seems to know a lot about you. I like the SPA's articles for their satirical value but King's articles go for the jugular. Every para is like a kick in the balls for the SPA - which seems fitting for a blokes club. It would be interesting if he went public.

I'm fascinated by the argument that to be richer we need to have a larger population. We're actually the 7th wealthiest country on the basis of per capita GDP (if you don't count Luxembourg, which you shouldn't because it is essentially a cheat)http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/534585063757. And with the exception of the US and Canada those countries who are richer than us are actually smaller than us http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/534288836446. Now they are 2007 figures, so Ireland probably doesn't rank anymore, but I think the rest do.

It's a pleasure to publish Malcolm's pieces - they are provocative and thought-provoking. But I think he makes some big mistakes. Finding me lumped-in with radical Greens as close philosophical allies is a little unsettling! You can be an economic liberal and think the population growth fetish is nonsense.

"Same old same old. Typical strategy. Why not come up with a coherent argument about why we should seek to increase populations ie. what are the benefits but no, instead the usual them and us rhetoric and put downs."
Because Pelican, that would require an intelligent person with the mental capacity to fit, aiming at a serious broader audience with intention to seriously weigh in on a debate.

Malcolm is your typical gorilla doing the job he's paid for- and the only thing he is capable of- winding up bogans who were already of such low mental intellect and getting publicity.

I really don't know why people are still posting here and trying to enlighten Cheryl's stereotypical viewpoints of the "anti-pops", considering the entire scenerio had happened only a few months earlier when King wrote, practically the exact same article then.